Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 30 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner Sanjay Varma, occupier and factory manager of Mangalore Refineries and Petrochemicals Ltd (MRMR), represented by senior counsel; respondent State of Karnataka, represented by High Court Government Pleader.
  • Proceedings: Criminal Petition No.7906 of 2020 filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quash of criminal case C.C. No.1615/2020 registered before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangalore, alleging contravention of Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948.
  • Background: MRPL entered an EPCM contract with Engineers India Ltd (EIL) for a BS‑VI refinery project. EIL engaged Bridge & Roof Company India Ltd (B&R) for mechanical work on revamp of MRPL Sour Water Stripping (SWS) units. B&R sub‑contracted portions of the work to Northern Construction Company. On 01‑07‑2020, workers Sri Kamalesh Kumar and Sri Ram Sevak Mahto (employees of the sub‑contractor) suffered burn injuries while performing maintenance near the refinery sour‑water line; Mahto later died on 05‑08‑2020.
  • Regulatory Action: Deputy Director of Factories, Division‑I, Mangalore inspected the site on 02‑07‑2020, issued a show‑cause notice on 15‑09‑2020, MRPL replied on 25‑09‑2020, and the respondent rejected the reply on 28‑09‑2020. An appeal under Section 107 of the Factories Act was dismissed on 22‑10‑2020. A private complaint (C.C. No.1615/2020) was filed on 20‑10‑2020, and cognizance was taken.
  • Petitioner’s Contentions: (i) MRPL, as a public sector occupier, is protected by Section 197 Cr.P.C. and cannot be prosecuted without sanction; (ii) the contractor and sub‑contractor were fully responsible for safety, as evidenced by a letter dated 24‑09‑2018 shifting liability; (iii) the injured persons were employees of the sub‑contractor, not MRPL, so Section 92 does not apply; (iv) the work was not part of the manufacturing process.
  • Respondent’s Counter‑Arguments: The occupier’s statutory duties under Sections 7A(2)(a‑c), 38(1) and 92 cannot be avoided by contractual arrangements; the incident occurred during revamp of a core refinery unit, which is incidental to the manufacturing process; therefore MRPL remains liable.
  • Judicial Precedents Cited:
  • Shri Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1958 SC 388) – definition of “worker” pre‑1976 amendment.
  • Lanco Anpara Power Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016 (10) SCC 329) – occupier’s obligations.
  • J. K. Industries Ltd v. Chief Inspector of Factories (1996 (6) SCC 665) – occupier liability.
  • S. Suresh v. State of Karnataka (2025 SCC OnLine KAR 25603) – civil work vs. manufacturing process.
  • CRL.P.No.7340/2019 (15‑07‑2026) – injured were contractor employees but liability still attaches to occupier.
  • Additional High Court judgments distinguishing civil‑construction cases from manufacturing‑related work.
  • Legal Analysis: The Court examined the statutory definitions under Sections 2(l) and 2(n) of the Factories Act, the post‑1976 amendment expanding “worker” to include agency‑employed persons, and the occupier’s duties under Sections 7A and 38. It held that the revamp of SWS units, though involving subcontractors, is work incidental to the refinery’s manufacturing process; therefore the injured persons fall within the definition of “worker” and MRPL, as occupier, cannot evade liability by contractual delegation.

Final Outcome

  • The petition seeking quash of the criminal proceedings is dismissed. The criminal case under Section 92 of the Factories Act will continue against MRPL.

Topics: Factories Act Liability, Occupier Responsibility